User:Yomomo/ Decision making

Coup d'état?

not necessary

@Kingsif: Here is my argumentation. Could you be so polite to read it before making judgements? Thanks Yomomo (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC) @Kingsif: I also saw that you are quite active in the Venezuela topics. I have to say that not every situation is the same. So, it can be, that in many situations the title "political crisis" is a more appropriate title, but not every situation is the same. Your role as an Administrator is among others to use your powers to accomplish a consensus and respect neutrality. The case in Bolivia is not the same like in other places. So once again: please read the arguments. If there are arguments that one of the titles "2019 political crisis in Bolivia" and "2019 coup d'état in Bolivia" (without question mark) are more appropriate, no problem. According to the analysis here, this is though not the case. "Political crisis" can also be used for the situation in Belgium, where they had no government for years. The situation in Bolivia is not at all comparable to this and the current regime is not at all voted by the people. In fact, the party of the current president would have very little success in the elections... This situation is not at all the same like in Belgium, why should it have the same title? The situation is also not comparable to Venezuela. The army there remained on the side of the government and did in fact suppress reactions. Of course the situation there is much more complicated, but still it has nothing to do with the situation now in Bolivia. I also read your page. I don't really now what to say: calling the worries of people that are actually suffering under political suppression "hysteric" is not really polite and I don't think that it represents the spirit of wikipedia (maybe also not your one). Are the supporters of Morales "hysteric"? They are the majority as a party (although maybe not the absolute majority anymore) and their choice was not respected. Are the supporters of the other parties "hysteric"? If you count them all together, maybe they are the absolute majority. Their wish was also not respected. (and this speaking only about Bolivia, I could also mention Poland and Hungary here, but this is another discussion...) On the other hand, I can understand your reaction. A discussion based on arguments is almost impossible in our days. Instead of argumentation you see almost only mutual accusations, like "you are an anarchist" or "you are a fascist". In the eyes of people using such characterizations, these characterizations are already a sufficient argumentation. I found it really strange, that many users in the talk pages of the site the political situation in Bolivia use as argument: "this is a coup d'état, because this is a coup d'état". I really don't know what to say. Anyway. Once more: here are the arguments. You decide. yours Yomomo (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Argumentation I actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit though, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d'état in the title violates exactly in the same way NPOV (there are quite enough arguments on both sides about this already, I don't want to repeat them here, the following tablet analyses the situation anyway and tries to compress these arguments). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer is:YES: 2019 Coup d etat (?) in Bolivia. In this way we mention the fact that the situation has (actually almost all of) the characteristics of a coup d'état and (through the question mark) point out that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d'état (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without being threatened...). The change in the title is thereafter the only that respects the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia (which is actually definitely NOT being respected with the "political crisis" title) and respects also consensus.

A comment about the Tablet: the references are actually a combination of comments and references. I couldn't find a way to separate them, without making it extreme difficult to read the tablet. The tablet should be simple, in order to make the arguments easy to see.

Comments and references	↓Part of the Definition of a Coup d'état→	Yes Fact	Yes Claim	No Fact	No Claim	Not clear
	There were ways to solve the problem with legal meanings which were not used	✔
	The military participated in the act	(✔)		(✔)		✔
	The government members were intimitated	✔	✔
	The new regime was based on the army	(✔)		(✔)		✔
	The new regime arrested (oder tried to arrest) all members of the government and the parlament			✔		✔
	The new regime violated the constitution	(✔)		(✔)		✔
	The new regime violated human rights	✔
	The new regime tried to suppress the mind of its opposition	✔

I'm actually trying to create a similar tablet about the whole actual situation, if you want to help, just write in my user talk page

History of the recent political situation in Bolivia

References and comments	Topic	Fact	Claim	Don't know
	A referendum took place to the question, if Morales could candidate for a third time. Morales lost the referendum with a rather small difference: 48,7% to 51,3%.	✔
	Immediately before the referendum there was a mud campaigne from media of the opposition. Theme of the campagne was the accusation, that Morales had a liaison with a younger woman and a child with a her.	✔
	The child never appeared, the woman was condemned for financial flaws.	✔
	There was no court against the media	✔
	Morales lost the referendum because of the campaigne		✔	✔
	A group of Morales party made a request at the constitutional court to still give him permission to candidate	✔
	The court was not independend but unter control of the party of Morales		✔
	The courts decision was based on the fact, that the constitution of bolivia ( Art. 13 Abs. IV) demands respect of human rights conventions, specially of the american convention of human rights, which states (Art. 23) the right of every citizen to candidate for presidancy without putting a limit	✔
	Bolivia has the second largest natural gas reserves in south America	✔
	Morales governement inhibited large companies to use this reserves only for their own profit and used most of the win for the good of the people (like Norway)	✔
	Bolivia has also large Lithium reserves	✔
	Lithium is an important metal for the evolving "green" industry. Ist important for reusable batteries.	✔
	Morales canceled shortly after the elections and shortly before his fall at least one contract (with a German company) concerning lithium, because they gave a small percentage for the people	✔
	On the elections of Okt. 2019 the party of Morales had a majority (but for the first time after 14 years no absolut majority)	✔
	The difference to the second party was more than 10%, something that means, no second round is needed		✔
	Immediately after the elections there were confirmed irregularities		✔
	There were irregularities in the elections	✔
	The party of Morales was responsible for these irregularities			✔
	there was a coup d etat against Morales	✔	✔	✔
	The new regime doesn't represent at all the people of Bolivia	✔
	The new regime claims to speak in the name of the catholic church (without of course asking the pope)	✔
	The new regime made already decisions that suppress human rights	✔
	You can actually call these decisions as the beginning of a civil war			✔
	Almost all of the deaths took place after Morales government was replaced from the new regime	✔
	Short after the fall of Morales the shares of a company, that has to do with lithium, topped (tesla shares)	✔

I should also write somewhere, that the reach regions want to separate from the poor. And that in these regions there is a strong representation of ethnic groups of colonialism forces.

It is also important to point out, that Morales is an Apu Mallku. Although the translation of this term in the english pages is often "king", it has actually very little to do with this notion as we know it in western countries, as this title is given to a person from its people and is no permanent title: an Apu Mallku is no longer one, when his people think he doesn't deserve it. It reminds a little bit on the notion of the leader analyzed by pierre Clastres in his book about the tribes in Amazons. Before Morales three Mallkus had to leave this position in less than 4 years...

Comments on your information about Bolivia

Hi, You have a lot of notes here, and I am going to try to address as much as possible. You seem to be very confused about what has happened / is happening in Bolivia.

I would like to help clarify some of these things for you.

I think the basis for some of your confusion is a misunderstanding of the timeline. Also a misunderstanding of the meaning of some events, likely due to language and cultural barriers

For the sake of speed, I will add in information first, then add references later. Most information is not available in English. You may need to translate from Spanish and ask questions if needed.

And before you accuse me of anything. I will spell myself out here. I am solidly left on the political scale. I believe in social programs and socialism (but only when it is real and not part of a populist autocrat's costume). I am not an extremist, and I am not a racist. I have a bias towards news sources that have local presence in Bolivia.

Response to Coup d'Etat table

1. There were ways to solve the problem by legal means which were not used. Here you reference that Evo Morales agreed to a new election, and that opposition could have accepted a new election.
   1. you are missing that Morales agreed to a new election only after:
      1. Three weeks of civil protests that were country-wide and had shut down most of the country
      2. Widespread evidence of fraud (I am not going to argue over the OAS report, there were other sources of evidence locally)
      3. The police had mutineed (police are national in Bolivia, not local), after refusing to attack civilians
      4. The Armed Forces had refused an order to attack the police and the protesters*
         1. * - Most of the Armed Forces sub-commanders refused, Kaliman (head of the Armed Forces) was willing to go along with the attack
         2. The country was on the edge of civil war
   2. By the time Morales was willing to accept a new election, the general consensus was that:
      1. if you commit fraud, you should not be given a second chance at commiting fraud
         1. A common meme locally was "If you commit fraud, you should go to trial, not to a runoff"
      2. Morales candidacy was not legal to begin with
         1. ICHR had since ruled against term limits as a human right (which is what Morales' based his reelection on)
   3. You are thinking of “the opposition” as a unified / organized entity. There was actually no organized “opposition” and no “leader” of the opposition. If Mesa had accepted a new election, the people would have revolted, no one would have accepted it anyway. Mesa was never the leader, just the figurehead.
      1. Mesa, as the opposition candidate on the ballot, barely spoke or appeared during those 3 weeks.
      2. Camacho and Pumari were highlighted, but they were regional leaders who gained recognition only after the protests were going on for several weeks, and did not have any followers outside of their respective regions (their importance was overplayed by foreign media).
      3. People actively protesting for the opposition of Morales included over half of the country. Millions of people.
         1. Every age
         2. Every gender
         3. Every ethnicity
         4. Every social status
         5. Every economic status
         6. Every side of the political spectrum
      4. The popular joke was that Evo had finally brought the country together… ...against himself.
      5. This was much more of a “popular uprising” than an “opposition”
      6. The organizations that opposed Morales included several major organizations which had supported him in previous years, but were now telling him that it had been long enough. (indigenous unions, trade unions, social organizations, etc). They could all influence their own members, but not people outside of their organization.
2. The military participated in the act You reference that the Armed Forces did not protect the incumbent government, and that the head of the Armed Forces asked Morales to resign.
   1. The Armed Forces in Bolivia are, by law, supposed to protect the government, but also to protect the Bolivian people.
      1. These two duties were in direct conflict.
      2. Two of the three subcommanders refused direct orders that would have had them killing police and civilians.
      3. Disobedience to unlawful orders is morally correct, even if they failed in their duty to protect the government..
   2. The head of the Armed Forces has a specific duty, by law, where he is supposed to make this type of suggestion.
      1. It may be confusing to many people, because this type of law is not common.
      2. The head of the Armed Forces at the time (Kaliman) was a strong supporter of Morales and was almost relieved of duty for dereliction because he delayed doing this. He was actually forced to perform this legal duty.
      3. Kaliman and Morales remain in friendly contact, and Kaliman still publicly supports Morales.
         1. You may realize that Morales has never blamed Kaliman specifically?
      4. Evo Morales was under no obligation to take the advice of the Armed Forces.
         1. He also could have fired all of them (or some of them), instead of resigning.
            1. Even if he was going to resign anyway, he could have fired them prior to resigning, in the same speech - and it would have been legally binding. He could have simultaneously hired anyone qualified. He knew that, and he did not fire or replace them.
3. The government members were intimidated Your only references here are from very bad sources. The information, written to sound very bad, is mostly fiction. RT in particular - RussiaTimes - They are a very biased news source, and they have ulterior motives in supporting Evo Morales. The same for Sputnik, Pagina12 and TeleSur.
   1. The only 2 “intimidation” kind of stories I saw were these…
      1. Salvatierra resigned in a deal (with the MAS party) to protect her father from legitimate criminal charges, according to members of the MAS party. She did make a big show of being intimidated in public when she tried to enter the congress a couple of days after she quit. She was not allowed, because after she quit, she was no longer an employee and the congress is not open to the general public.
      2. The mayor of Vinta was harassed in a public “community justice” type of punishment. She was accused of facilitating the murder of a 21 year old - one of the first deaths in this conflict. (he was protesting against Morales)
         1. She did have some responsibility for his death.
         2. While this is actually not a legitimate case of community justice, it was carried out in a similar manner - testament to the damage community justice has done to our society, because it gives legitimacy to this type of punishment.
         3. Community Justice was legalized by Morales and MAS, who continued to defend it. These types of cruel and unusual punishments (as well as more violent punishments)  are very common under that form of justice.  
   2. Other than those 2 examples - what government members have you seen with legitimate claims of harassment or intimidation ?
4. The new regime was based on the army Your arguments for this are extremely weak. You are not understanding the timeline and context here.
   1. The new regime had absolutely nothing to do with the army, and the top leaders of the Armed Forces were all fired and replaced immediately.
      1. None of the previous heads of the Armed Forces are in the interim government.
      2. The interim government was not chosen by the Armed Forces in any way.
   2. The Bolivian police had joined with the opposition much earlier.
      1. The Police had been ordered to attack civilians. The leaders of the police then quarantined all officers in the police stations, locking them in. This was meant to prevent any possible accident which could lead to violence. (like the current clashes in Chile and everywhere else, when the police inevitably use too much force).
      2. This was possible because the anti-Morales protesters were emphasising peaceful blockades, rather than mobil marches or protests. Each person blockaded their own local street. Tis was prior to Morales' resignation.
   3. The document giving immunity to the Armed Forces was a technical requirement which allowed the Armed Forces to assist the police in containing violent protests. The Armed Forces are not allowed to participate in policing of citizens without a specific request from the leaders of the police. They have to have written clearance to join the police force on the streets. Otherwise they could not have legally helped.
      1. This was necessary because of the groups of pro-Morales protesters who had acquired automatic weapons (illegal in Bolivia) and were attempting to blow things up with dynamite. The police do not have automatic weapons, and they did not feel like they were equipped to handle the level of weapons they were fighting against.
         1. I will admit, blowing things up with dynamite is a time-honored tradition for protests in Bolivia. BUT…
         2. Legally, the only ones allowed to have dinamite are the miners. And the miners had all defected to the Anti-Morales side.
      2. The targets for destruction were extremely dangerous, another reason why the police felt they needed military assistance.
         1. the gas processing plant targeted for exploding, is located basically next to a residential neighborhood. Blowing it up would have resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, as well as the disruption of distribution. Many people went without gas (used for cooking, heating etc) while the pro-Morales protesters had the plant under threat.
      3. The misunderstanding here seems to mostly be this - the documents removed penalties for participating in policing, which is against the law for the Armed Forces, not for human rights violations.
5. The new regime arrested (or tried to arrest) all members of the government and the parliament
   1. No they did not.
   2. The ones that fled / sought asylum were mostly because they knew they were going to be caught and tried for actual crimes they committed.
   3. The members of the electoral committees were detained, not arrested. Many of them participated in election fraud and a cover up. It is reasonable to expect that all of them will need to make official statements. Some of them participated in the fraud and will be charged with crimes. The ones who are charged will go to trial
6. The new regime violated the constitution Your link for this doesn’t link to anything
   1. No they did not
   2. I posted about this in the talk page for J Áñez
7. The new regime violated human rights Your link for this doesn’t link to anything
   1. I assume you are going to mean because there were deaths?
      1. The first deaths were while morales was still in power.
         1. Many people try to hide the deaths of Anti-Morales protestors by making it sound like all deaths were from Pro-Morales protestors, but Anti-Morales protesters died as well, at the hands of pro-Morales protestors. The first deaths were of Anti-Morales protestors.
         2. Morales’ followers attempted to bust up peaceful opposition blockades. There was evidence linking attackers to the MAS party, and in one case, to an “imported” militant from the FARC, fighting in support of Morales, prior to his resignation. (One of these was the case of the Vinta mayor)
      2. If you consider protest deaths during Áñez  time as human rights violations, then you would need to consider protest deaths during Morales time in office as human rights violations.
         1. If so, Morales is the bigger violator of human rights.
   2. Morales before resigning called for his supporters to siege the cities, blockading the highways saying "we will cut off the food and water and see how long they last"
      1. This led to food shortages for many people before Morales resigned.
      2. again, he called for his own citizens to be held under siege, in an attempt to break them. Millions of people.
8. The new regime tried to suppress the mind of its opposition Your link for this doesn’t link to anything
   1. What does that mean? I don’t understand.that

Response to timeline table

(I will fill in this information later)

But I will point out one thing in case you want to revise it first.

The "woman" was Gabriela Zapata. The Zapata case did not cause Morales to lose the referendum.

There were 2 scandals: - The economic scandal that Zapata was arrested for, was that Morales had arranged a job for her. The job gave her HUGE commissions from enormous contracts with China. Despite her having no qualifications for the job. She was arrested for skimming. But the scandal is that the President gave his ex-girlfriend a million dollar job. (and she is not the only ex-girlfriend he is accused of helping to get a job)

The personal scandal, involving a baby that never appeared, was that there is some doubt about the age of Zapata at the start of the relationship. At one point, Morales appeared to admit to having relations with her when she was 17. This was never clarified. You could ignore it, except that it was not the only case where he was accused of relations with a minor. And, he himself once said that when he retired he wanted a 15 year old girl to accompany him in retirement. It is gross, but it is still more socially acceptable in Latin America than in the USA or Europe.

This did not cost him the election.

1. I should also write somewhere, that the reach regions want to separate from the poor.
   1. (you mean rich?) But, no they don't - where do you get these ideas?!
      1. If you are talking about the Autonomias, that ended a decade ago.
         1. They were not trying to seperate from the poor.
         2. The legitimate complaint (which is common in many countries) was that a couple of departments were supplying all of the money for the federal government and for social programs, but getting no money back from the government for building infrastructure. The departments were not allowed to tax their residents, so any money they needed, to build a simple road for example, had to be begged from the Federal government. The departments making the most money, were the ones receiving the least back.
         3. The largest department (by population) was not getting enough money for very basic infrastructure. Many neighborhoods could not be reached by paved roads, which meant no public bus service. Also no water or electricity in many.areas. Even though they were providing the largest amount of the federal budget. Which is why there was anger about the topic.
         4. The Autonomia asked to keep some federal tax money locally and to be able to tax locally, so they could make a budget independent of the Federal government. This also gave them the ability to prioritize the budget according to local needs, rather than central government demands (which might emphasise roads, when the people need water projects, for example). Before, the department could not do anything without the central government's permission. So some regions felt they were being punished for not politically supporting the president, by being denied basic infrastructure.
         5. This also gave each department a governor, and a limited ability to have local laws.
      2. The autonomia laws passed a long time ago. They work just fine.
2. And that in these regions there is a strong representation of ethnic groups of colonialism forces.
   1. You mean lots of white people? The country has about 4% whites of European decent. plus 1% Mennonites, (but they are separatist and generally don't vote). The 4% of whites are not in control of the country. 1% non-European whites (Arabic, Jewish, etc), 5% Asian/African/other, 45% single-tribe Indigenous, 45% mixed tribe Indigenous or Mestizo - mixed indigenous/white. The Mestizo in Bolivia are more indigenous than white ethnically. around 3/4 indigenous to 1/4 white - on average. So it makes no sense to say the 75% indigenous are oppressing the 99% indigenous.
3. It is also important to point out, that Morales is an Apu Mallku. Although the translation of this term in the english pages is often "king", it has actually very little to do with this notion as we know it in western countries, as this title is given to a person from its people and is no permanent title: an Apu Mallku is no longer one, when his people think he doesn't deserve it. It reminds a little bit on the notion of the leader analyzed by pierre Clastres in his book about the tribes in Amazons. Before Morales three Mallkus had to leave this position in less than 4 years...
   1. No. There is no power in a symbolic title. No one cares about this.
   2. Be careful of falling into the "Noble Savage" trope.

A comment from me for Laella

Wuao! this is really a very extensive response. I wish I had more time to deal with it. I'm sorry that some citations don't work, actually I copy-pasted them without trying to prove them... I must say, that I very much appreciate, that you are staying on the side of really arguing (in opposite to the way political discussions are going on on our days, I mean something like: "you fascist" and "you anarchist"). I cannot really know if you are "left" or right", and this plays after all no role in the argumentation, so I will take your word. I think though, that you misunderstood something. I'm no fan of Morales and no Anti-Morales. The reason I'm reacting like this,is more that I'm a fan of a certain political agenda. This would include:

• Human rights (I mean for, and not against :-) )
• A more equal wealth distribution
• Corruption (I mean here against, and not for)

and so on. I think you got the picture...

As far as I know, MAS is the only party that actually achieved to get through measures, that support such an Agenda. You may of course say here, that there was also corruption in this party, but I'm keeping asking what would be better (and if the other alternatives are really not corrupt). Mesa for example had already tried before Morales and didn't manage it. I really understand what you say about people getting on the streets and of course I'm supporting the causes of these people (and I suppose you too) that demonstrated against Morales, as long they support the above mentioned agenda (which would mean: their rights) but my question is, did they support the political agenda mentioned above? Do you really have a government right now, that is not corrupt, supports human rights and would support an equal wealth distribution? I very much doubt it. Is it not like this, that the new government declared they bring the church back in the parliament (or something like it)? And Human rights: My comment about human rights is about the decree that was allowing the army killing under "extreme conditions", what they actually did. Yes, it seems that your country was at the eve of a civil war and I wish that you go on finding a peaceful solution.

Of course you know that I have more barriers (time and language are two of them). So I only write as long as I can overcome such barriers (that means: sparsely). But I hope that one more thing is clear to you. One (not exactly unimportant) reason, why many people supporting the above mentioned agenda react in this situation the way I do, is exactly because state department called the situation a return to democracy. Having in mind the role of USA in latin America, I wouldn't call these (also my) reactions unexcused. Of course, there is no corruption in the USA. They found a very inspiring and revolutionary way to combat against it. It is simply legal. I'm not talking of course here of the American people (a large part of which still live in extreme poverty...).

In German you use at the end of a brief "liebe Grüße", which means something like "greetings with love". So: greetings with love: George Yomomo (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

And a reply

Greetings :)

I am very much on the side of human rights! And I am in favor of social programs (universal healthcare, public schooling, programs for elderly, poor, etc.). And very much against corruption.

I am a very strong believer in ignoring what people say, and seeing what people do.

Evo Morales says all of the right things.... and then he does the exact opposite. And from the outside, I think all you see is that he says what you want to hear.

Mesa was president for 18 months. He didn't get a chance to try anything. Do you know why he had to leave early? Evo Morales was leading violent protests against him.

The irony is that Evo Morales left office in a way very similar to how he came in, but on the other side.

I will keep to ordered lists, because they are easier for me ;)

1. MAS and Evo Morales have managed to gain a lot of international support by claiming to be "socialist" (they are not).
   1. Locally, Morales has admitted to not being socialist, saying it isn't practical for Bolivia.
   2. Ironically, Mesa - the opposition candidate, is actually farther left politically than Morales
2. by claiming to be for the environment (they are not)
   1. You have to look up the horrible TIPNIS situation in your native language to understand it better
   2. They support slash and burn agriculture
   3. They have favored cocaine production over the environment repeatedly
3. by claiming to be for indigenous rights (they are, as long as it is convenient...)
   1. and as long as it is their indigenous groups [Aymara and Quechua]. Morales has not been as good to indigenous of other regions [Guaraní, Moxo, etc...]).
4. "As far as I know, MAS is the only party that actually achieved to get through measures, that support such an Agenda"
   1. No, they actually did not do as much as other governments. What they have done is a much better job of selling their image.
      1. they have taken the credit for projects started before they entered power, but have actually not started any social programs
      2. What measures do you think they achieved? can you name one?
         1. I know that it is often repeated rhetoric that "No one has done more for the indigenous than Evo Morales" - but they never name specifics.
            1. Just because?
            2. The economy - yes, the economy improved. Mostly because Morales coincided with a huge boom in Gas prices. We were bringing in more money than he could steal. When gas prices dropped, the money dried up. And now - for all the money that came into Bolivia from the gas - we have nothing to show for it. He didn't make us money - he squandered it.
            3. Extremely ironically, most of the social benefit programs Morales takes credit for were started by Goni, a right-wing president Morales also ousted, before Mesa.
               1. That includes the social security payments for the elderly
               2. also the benefits for pregnant and lactating women
               3. and the government-sponsored healthcare for the extremely poor
      3. The main social benefit program Morales can take credit for was: expanding the government-sponsored healthcare and calling it "universal healthcare"
         1. It is a sad joke locally. Doctors have been protesting for years because the hospitals Morales/MAS build do not get a consumibles budget.
            1. this means you can go to the hospital, and be seen by a doctor
            2. But they do not have a piece of gauze, a single pill, needles or IVs, nothing
               1. If you have a broken leg, for example. Your doctor will give your family a list of things they need to acquire: 21mm needles, 2 liters of saline, 4 packages of gauze, 1 kilo of cast plaster, morphine or other pain med, etc etc.... If your family can not get the items, then you don't get them. The hospital has nothing
               2. The hospitals do not provide food for interned patients. If you have no family you have to arrange meals with a charity. Good luck finding one from your hospital bed.
         2. The waits to be seen in the public hospital were horrific before they became free for all. Now you can wait days.
      4. Juancito Pinto. Evo didn't invent it, but he made it national. (this one personally really bothers me)
         1. This program gives cash to parents for keeping their children in school.
         2. It gives the cash at the start of summer vacation, which in Bolivia is generally in December, just in time for Christmas...
            1. Also just in time for the december elections. It always feels like a bribe.
            2. There is no restriction on the cash given, parents are free to spend it on licor, and many do.
         3. There is no tracking of results. No way to see if it works, or test it against other uses of the money
         4. The schools (like the hospitals) get no consumibles budget. So no chalk, paper, pencils, books
            1. I always think they would be better using the money to buy school books in bulk, since that is the main reason given for not enrolling kids in school - books are too expensive.
   2. Mostly he liked to have new buildings built
      1. A lot of what Morales did was create "multi-function sports stadiums" - absurd in villages of 100 people, who really need a clinic
      2. A lot of these building were poorly built, and are now crumbling
         1. because they were often used to steal money, then they were cheaply built to show something

Did the anti-Morales protestors support human rights, wealth distribution and anti-corruption?

1. The anti-Morales protesters were focused on one issue: respecting democracy.
   1. Individuals may have had many different agendas, but all agreed that without democracy, no other agenda matters.
      1. This is why all opposition were supporting Mesa, even many with very different political views.
2. Why supporting democracy?
   1. When Morales took the presidency in 2006, Bolivia had a limit of ONE 5-year term for president. A person could run again, but not 2 terms in a row.
   2. One of the first things Morales did was to have the constitution re-written (a project which had come up in Mesa's term, but Morales received the fruit of that labor).
   3. In the the constitution, he insisted on allowing TWO 5-year terms, and that was written.
   4. After his first term, he ran again and won the presidency.
   5. But then, he decided he wanted a third term.
   6. He argued that his first term was under a different constitution and shouldn't count. So he got his third term.
      1. There was some evidence of fraud in this election, but it was mostly brushed off.
      2. But people were not happy about his third term. He lost popularity rapidly after this.
      3. He also began to be more obviously corrupt. He was stealing a lot of money.
   7. When he said he wanted a fourth term, there was a lot of anger
      1. He then agreed to put it to a national vote. He swore he would respect the vote results
      2. There was a lot of evidence of fraud, but he lost anyway
   8. A year later, he found a legal loophole and announced he would run
      1. There were massive protests against him re-running again
3. In my mind, supporting the legal term limits is a human rights and anti-corruption issue.
   1. A lot of people use Merkle as an example of someone in power longer than Morales
      1. It is not about how long, it is that he is not following the law - a law he hand a hand in writing!
4. The slogan "Return to Democracy" was an opposition slogan, not something that came from the USA - the USA got it from us.

Do you really have a government right now, that is not corrupt, supports human rights and would support an equal wealth distribution?

1. No, but you misunderstand - we have an interim government
   1. This is common here, there was one before Morales also
2. Interim governments are limited somewhat in what they can do
3. They actually do seem to be avoiding corruption. (maybe after a couple of years, they would be more corrupt)
   1. They have done a very good job so far of publicly auditing the nationalized companies that Morales was hiding the accounting.
   2. There were 2 incidents of giving not-paid volunteer positions to relatives. But that is all so far.
   3. They are opening up the "private contracts" Morales had made, which many feared did not favor Bolivia
   4. The interim government actually opened up a lot of very old "classified" information (from pre-Morales) that people had been begging to see for decades.
      1. One of the Anti-Morales protesters killed prior to Morales' resignation was an older man who had kept a protest for over a decade, trying to get those records.
4. Honestly, the interim government is well liked. Áñez seems serious, even if she is not perfect.
   1. Even if they were terrible, it is only for a few more months - it is a very short term.
5. They are very much supporting human rights
6. I do not think Áñez would support an equal wealth distribution. (neither did Morales)
   1. It doesn't matter, the interim government will be gone in 6 months

the new government declared they bring the church back in the parliament (or something like it)?

• No, you are probably thinking of Áñez, as she walked into the Presidential Palace
  • she said "Thank God who has allowed the bible to re-enter the presidential palace. May he bless and illuminate us."
• It isn't a legal return to a mix of church and state - and they have done nothing to bring religion back in to politics
• Most of the country is still Catholic and there is a growing protestant population (90% Christian if you add Catholic and Protestant), this is not as negative in Bolivia as it would be in your country.
• No worse than Morales' frequent indigenous religious ceremonies.

My comment about human rights is about the decree that was allowing the army killing under "extreme conditions", what they actually did.

• Yes, so I responded to this before, but I will reiterate - That document sounded like an open permit to kill or something, but it was actually the document required to be able to assist the police. The police were requesting assistance. The armed forces can't assist the police without a written decree like this.
• The "protesters" they were confronting were not peaceful, innocent protestors. They were trying to blow up a gas refinery, located in a city next to a residential neighborhood.
  • The damage would have been possibly hundreds of lives
  • plus the loss of residential gas for a large part of the country.
  • and the cost of rebuilding
  • Given the danger, the neighbors were complaining that the armed forces were not acting enough.
    • neighbors said that the armed forces should have been faster to stop the "protestors" and that they were afraid for their lives and their homes.
      • So, maybe the armed forces' actions are different depending on where you are standing.
        • put yourself in their shows - If there was a group of angry people with weapons about to blow up a gas refinery 2 blocks from your house, would you want the armed forces to be careful with the protestors' lives or with your life?
        • It is easy to say what someone should have done, from the comfort of the other side of the planet. Maybe the armed forces could have handled it better, but without a time machine we can not know.

Foreign involvement - This last item - I know the USA has a terrible history. They have intervened in Bolivia before, and not always with good intentions. Sometimes with terrible results. (Evo Morales is the result of US intervention - a backlash from the way they handled the drug wars) But the USA is really not there now. There has been no USA ambassador for 10 years. The NGOs were all kicked out, there is no presence.

And none of the things that have happened actually benefit the USA. I am sure Trump still doesn't know we exist, even after all of this. Bolivia's lithium is not cost-effective to mine, a lot of people say "oh the USA wants Bolivia's lithium", but Bolivia hasn't actually figured out how to large-scale mine it yet (and I hope they don't - it would destroy the unique local ecology of the Salar de Uyuni).

On the other hand - There has been a lot of influence from 3 unexpected countries in the last decade, and it has been increasing: China, Iran and Russia.

Bolivia's biggest debt right now is to China (used to be the World Bank / IMF). Most contracts (none of them good for Bolivia) have been going to China and Russia. Even charity has been coming from Iran more than the USA now. And really, Bolivia has nothing interesting for the USA right now.

China and Russia both had a lot to lose from the fall of Evo Morales. Russia had sent a team to help Evo Morales with social media, both local and international.

For most Bolivians, international coverage has been very surreal. First because before this election, most people in the USA had never heard of Bolivia. Second because the coverage is so different from what is going on locally. It is like looking outside and seeing pouring rain. But everyone on the internet is screaming that there is no rain, because the news and blogs all say there is no rain. And you can say, "but I am here, looking outside my window and seeing the rain" And it won't matter - they just keep screaming about how there is no rain, and they will even tell you why there is no rain. "No matter what you think you see, it is not raining on your house". And you say, "but I stick my hand outside and it gets wet, and you have never even been to Bolivia", and they reply "you are a racist, right-wing extremist, etc..."

The whole thing is very bizarre

And I am sorry for rambling so long, it is just rare to find someone who will listen, instead of call me a fascist ;)

liebe Grüße - Saludos con cariño, - L

And a reply about your history list

@Laella:: Dear Laella

First, thanks for the info! I think you misunderstood something in the list, I try there to show the way both sides are reacting to specific themes, where they have opposite opinions, and try to make this difference in opinions obvious (hopefully in a good way, which can be of course much improved). I left three options: fact, claim, don't know, there could be of course at least one more, namely "lie". For example, about the 10% difference I characterized it as a claim and not as a fact. Of course there was much bias on my side supporting Morales, but that's exactly the meaning of this tablet, making biases on both sides obvious with the purpose to facilitate a discussion.

Please think of your frustration and your angry and think, that about so many people react to what you are saying exactly in the same way, but from the opposite side. I don't know what kind of a structure MAS has, probably it's like every other party, this means it demands a party discipline, which of course is quite contradicting to a democracy. But I pledge you to understand, that there are people, many people, in your country, that feel exactly the way you do, but on the opposite side. If you manage to transform your anger and concentrate on values like human rights and so on, this would be a profit for all of you. I think it would be a very clever move from one of the two parties (the one from Mesa and MAS) to suggest a cooperation under these values: human rights, transparency, more equal distribution of wealth, democratic function of the parties and so on. Don't forget that the protest against Mesa (from what I read in wiki) originated in his saying, that he cannot do anything against the international interests. From what you are saying, Morales and MAS said they would do, but in the fact didn't. But their supporters believe what MAS is saying. You would have definitely more chances to manage something, if you find a way to work together. It seems to me, that the main thing that divides you is the party you are supporting and not your values. Have you seen "life of Bryan"? It seems you are doing, what this film is describing, that left parties are doing, namely destroying each other. Is this really what you want? Is it not possible to concentrate on the resemblances instead of the differences?

About wikipedia and how it works: It would be ideal to find a way, to let both sides express their opinions based on what they think that reliable sources are. What you are doing is exactly what you are accusing the others are doing. Especially in themes of great controversy, in relationships or in politics or whatever, the only way to reach a consensus is to accept, that the other side thinks they know the absolute truth exactly like you do and to accept, that no side really knows the absolute truth. So you can reach topics, where both sides accept the same view and topics where this is not the case and make it clear through writing it, making it obvious and bringing so much evidence as possible, without judging the source. In my country of origin (Greece) there are only a few wide spread media, and all of them belong to two persons supporting the (right wing) government. The state media belong and express right now only the opinions of this government. So there are practically no media that give another opinion. This is of course a freedom of press, but actually no freedom of press. What is the case with the media in your country? Who do they belong to and why are they supporting the things they are supporting? The only alternative in my country are leftist media, that are of course biased but of course the only that represent another point of view and actually are the only to do an important work in investigating journalism. The only difference between leftist and official media regarding bias is, that official media don't say loud they are biased and manage to present themselves in a very elaborate way as unbiased (like it has been shown in many cases, I don't know if you have infos about this).

About the government of Anez: I don't know what you think about Trump, but the fact that Anez is supporting Guaido in Venezuela is quite disturbing for me. The first two governments that recognized Guaido was the government of Trump and the government of Bolsonaro. You know already what Trump is and Bolsonaro was an army officer (parachuting) during the latest dictatorship in Brazil. Do you have any idea, what this means about human rights? I really don't know who Guaido is and what he is actually supporting, but I DO know who his main supporters are and what they are supporting. The fact that he didn't say anything against these supporters, who are definitely not for human rights, makes him in my eyes at least suspicious and therefore also Anez. And now you have also USAID controlling your elections. Do you really seriously think that they would make objective elections? You say you are supporting human rights and so on. Is it possible for you to stop accusing people (and I don't mean Morales himself, I mean his supporters) and find a way to discuss accepting also their point of view? If you are really for an agenda that supports values of human rights, please think about what I m saying here and please try to find a way to do this not against but with the "others" that have same ideals and avoiding accusing them (like they accuse you...). Make them obvious, that accusing each other and not hearing each other is a problem for both. This would be a profit for both sides (therefore also for you :-) ) and for human rights.

Lovefull greetings :-)

Yomomo,

I am sorry if my writing style comes across as angry. I am not angry, but I am passionate and frustrated. All too often it seems that there is no way to make people understand that we have a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I have jumped around trying to figure out how to respond to you. You show great idealism, and that is nice, but you really do not understand the situation.

Please think of your frustration and your angry and think, that about so many people react to what you are saying exactly in the same way, but from the opposite side. I don't know what kind of a structure MAS has, probably it's like every other party, this means it demands a party discipline, which of course is quite contradicting to a democracy. But I pledge you to understand, that there are people, many people, in your country, that feel exactly the way you do, but on the opposite side. If you manage to transform your anger and concentrate on values like human rights and so on, this would be a profit for all of you ...... Is it possible for you to stop accusing people (and I don't mean Morales himself, I mean his supporters) and find a way to discuss accepting also their point of view? If you are really for an agenda that supports values of human rights, please think about what I m saying here and please try to find a way to do this not against but with the "others" that have same ideals and avoiding accusing them (like they accuse you...). Make them obvious, that accusing each other and not hearing each other is a problem for both. This would be a profit for both sides (therefore also for you :-) ) and for human rights.

Ok, I admit, I do find this deeply insulting. Also, again, it shows that you do not understand what is happening. At the moment, MAS is cooperating well with the interim party. They admit there was cheating. They are happy to get a new candidate. They are moving on. When Morales tried to unilaterally select the next candidate, they told him no.

You think that those opposing Morales just don't "understand" our countrymen, but you - who have never been to our country - understand them? And you can explain to us that we should just learn to accept them? Hear their side? That we don't know?

And please tell me where I accused any Morales supporters of anything? Do you think maybe I don't know any? That I don't have friends or family who once voted for him? I know why they voted for him, and I know why they stopped voting for him. And none of it has to do with what you think. And, again, sorry if I sound angry - but really it is just frustration. It never occurs to you that maybe you don't know as much as you think?

I think you misunderstood something in the list, I try there to show the way both sides are reacting to specific themes, where they have opposite opinions, and try to make this difference in opinions obvious (hopefully in a good way, which can be of course much improved). I left three options: fact, claim, don't know, there could be of course at least one more, namely "lie". For example, about the 10% difference I characterized it as a claim and not as a fact. Of course there was much bias on my side supporting Morales, but that's exactly the meaning of this tablet, making biases on both sides obvious with the purpose to facilitate a discussion.

Yes, I agree there is a lot of bias on your side. You really do not understand what you are supporting. But there is a flaw in your method - all of your "facts" are ideas that support your theories. You left out everything inconvenient. And you marked almost all of them as facts. You only even questioned a couple of them. Even though your sources are weak or non-existent. But both of your lists are completely irrelevant, because they do not go back far enough.

Where is the line about how Morales cheated term limits? Do you understand how he cheated in the elections? Do you think that it doesn't matter that he cheated? Do you think it is ok that he doesn't have to follow the laws of his own country? Laws he helped to write?

You need to question your beliefs. And you don't get to defend Morales until you fully understand what he did at TIPNIS. The crisis in Bolivia didn't start on Nov 10.

I think it would be a very clever move from one of the two parties (the one from Mesa and MAS) to suggest a cooperation under these values: human rights, transparency, more equal distribution of wealth, democratic function of the parties and so on. Don't forget that the protest against Mesa (from what I read in wiki) originated in his saying, that he cannot do anything against the international interests. From what you are saying, Morales and MAS said they would do, but in the fact didn't. But their supporters believe what MAS is saying. You would have definitely more chances to manage something, if you find a way to work together. It seems to me, that the main thing that divides you is the party you are supporting and not your values. Have you seen "life of Bryan"? It seems you are doing, what this film is describing, that left parties are doing, namely destroying each other. Is this really what you want? Is it not possible to concentrate on the resemblances instead of the differences?

The reason that there is no cooperation between "left" parties is that Morales is the one who will not cooperate with anyone, he has been the one who is demonizing "the opposition", who has brutally repressed indigenous Bolivians. Evo Morales is not really a leftist. And you really think Morales will work with other parties when he was not even willing to share power with someone from his own party (to allow another candidate from his party to run for president)? Morales is not going to agree to work on human rights and distribution of wealth - he is an autocrat Also, Morales has stolen over US$1billion from the country (that I know of). He is not going to be cooperating to distribute the wealth.

And Mesa's party isn't "the opposition party" - his party isn't even popular. I don't support his party - I don't care about his party. The whole country agreed to vote for Mesa, people from every side - left and right, because the only way to beat Morales was to not split the vote between many candidates - which is how Morales had stayed in power. So everyone agreed to concentrate the vote for Mesa. But it isn't because everyone cares about Mesa, and not because they support his party. Everyone agreed to do whatever we had to do to get rid of Morales. What is dividing us is not a political party. (Personally I like Cardenas, but I understood that splitting the vote would give the election to Morales).

What do you mean the protest against Mesa? "originated in his saying, that he cannot do anything against the international interests" Are you talking about the protests in 2005? That makes no sense.

In 2019 there were no protests against Mesa. You will need to post a link, or explain that one.

About wikipedia and how it works: It would be ideal to find a way, to let both sides express their opinions based on what they think that reliable sources are. What you are doing is exactly what you are accusing the others are doing. Especially in themes of great controversy, in relationships or in politics or whatever, the only way to reach a consensus is to accept, that the other side thinks they know the absolute truth exactly like you do and to accept, that no side really knows the absolute truth. So you can reach topics, where both sides accept the same view and topics where this is not the case and make it clear through writing it, making it obvious and bringing so much evidence as possible, without judging the source.

You are confusing consensus with truth - you and the rest of the world can come to a consensus about what happened in Bolivia, and it will still not be the TRUTH. In Bolivia, there is not that much controversy about the truth. No one denies Morales should not have run in this election. No one denies he cheated. You are defending what even MAS does not defend. In Bolivia, we are not arguing about these things. Only online, people who have never been to Bolivia argue about what is happening. Bolivia is arguing about completely different things.

In my country of origin (Greece) there are only a few wide spread media, and all of them belong to two persons supporting the (right wing) government. The state media belong and express right now only the opinions of this government. So there are practically no media that give another opinion. This is of course a freedom of press, but actually no freedom of press. What is the case with the media in your country? Who do they belong to and why are they supporting the things they are supporting? The only alternative in my country are leftist media, that are of course biased but of course the only that represent another point of view and actually are the only to do an important work in investigating journalism. The only difference between leftist and official media regarding bias is, that official media don't say loud they are biased and manage to present themselves in a very elaborate way as unbiased (like it has been shown in many cases, I don't know if you have infos about this).

There is not free press in Greece? I am sorry to hear it. There was not free press in Bolivia either - it was supposedly free, but Morales created government censorship of the press. Imagine how bad the news about the government must be for the media to risk jail by reporting censored news. And many channels are/were owned by supporters of Morales. So it is not like Bolivian media favored the opposition. Even so, I think most Bolivian media does ok. At least they are not talking about things that are not real, like RT or TeleSur.

About the government of Anez: I don't know what you think about Trump, but the fact that Anez is supporting Guaido in Venezuela is quite disturbing for me. The first two governments that recognized Guaido was the government of Trump and the government of Bolsonaro. You know already what Trump is and Bolsonaro was an army officer (parachuting) during the latest dictatorship in Brazil. Do you have any idea, what this means about human rights? I really don't know who Guaido is and what he is actually supporting, but I DO know who his main supporters are and what they are supporting. The fact that he didn't say anything against these supporters, who are definitely not for human rights, makes him in my eyes at least suspicious and therefore also Anez.

I thought I had already said what I think I of Trump - I think he is horrible, and should be on trial for human rights violations. I think Morales is a lot like Trump. If the IHRC had allowed that term limits were against human rights, like Morales had claimed, then Trump could have also been president forever. I am really surprised that more people weren't worried about that. You should have been. If you really claim to be pro-human rights and pro-left - there is no reason to support Morales claim the term limits are a human rights violation.

Guaido is disturbing for you? And Maduro is not?!?! Have you seen what is really happening in Venezuela? You can't support the horrible dictatorships just because they claim to be on the left. The people of Venezuela are starving thanks to Chavez/Maduro. You need to find better news sources.

Anez is a temporary leader. And she is aware of that. She is behaving like a temporary president. I actually think for the most part she is doing a great job (not perfect, but better than expected)

And now you have also USAID controlling your elections. Do you really seriously think that they would make objective elections?

USAID is not controlling the elections. They offered to pay to rebuild the regional elections offices that were burnt. So far that is all. Bolivia is not as weak as you think. We are not that easily taken over. But we can be thankful USAID is bringing money. The are also offering assistance for the chiquitania and other ecologically damaged areas, which we really need. Do you understand what USAID is?

There will be several international organizations observing, I am sure.

I hope you will stop, really read, and try to find more news sources.

Consider looking at Bolivian news (pagina7, El Mundo, El Deber, La Razon) - translate it with google translate.

greetings with hope -L

A referendum took place to the question, if Morales could candidate for a third time. Morales lost the referendum with a rather small difference: 48,7% to 51,3%. It was for a fourth term. And it was suspected at the time that there was also fraud in this election ( he just didn't cheat quite enough to win). Evo/MAS was not getting these kind of numbers in polls pre-elections. And a large amount of Evo supporters were actually against Evo running for another term, just on principle.

Immediately before the referendum there was a mud campaigne from media of the opposition. Theme of the campagne was the accusation, that Morales had a liaison with a younger woman and a child with a her. This wasn't a mudslinging campaign. There were genuine illegal activities. The ex-girlfriend, Zapata, had a relationship for several years with Morales. Morales admits this. There was a birth certificate. Morales admits this. Morales claimed the child had died before it reached 1 year old. Zapata claimed the child still lived, then claimed the child was never born (stillborn) The birth certificate was investigated and found to be legal. Either a baby was born, or someone from the records office was involved in creating a fraudulent record - back when the baby would have been born (there is no way to do this retroactively). There is some confusion about Zapata's age. It appears that Zapata had lied to make herself younger, Morales had believed that Zapata was 18 when she gave birth (so even if it was not statutory rape, he had believed it was). They were dating for a few years, so it is still possible Zapata was actually under-age when they started. And it would have put the age Morales believed she had, closer to his stated prefered age of 15. None of this was part of the investigation. She was either 21 or 18 the year a child would have been born, Morales was 48) The initial crime investigation was for "influence peddling" Zapata, a couple of years after breaking up with Morales, was hired by a Chinese company, selling projects to the Bolivian government. She was hired despite not having proper qualifications for the job. The company was awarded over 300-million US dollars in contracts by the Bolivian government, after hiring Zapata. Some of the contracts were awarded without proper open solicitation. Zapata's commissions were in the millions of dollars. Zapata was tried, and sentenced to 10 years in jail. - Many felt it was a show trial to make Morales look better. Morales actually sued Zapata for emotional damages (he lost) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/bolivia-evo-morales-referendum-vote-defeat

The child never appeared, the woman was condemned for financial flaws. She was sentenced for financial crimes. (as well as impersonating a government official).

There was no court against the media A court against the media? You mean a trial against the media? for what? Reporting about a true story? The reporter who released this story had to flee the country and apply for asylum.

Morales lost the referendum because of the campaigne No, he lost the referendum because most people thought having the same person in office for nearly 20 years was not a good idea (even his own supporters) AND because it is bad precedent. If the president you like can stay in power forever, so can a president you don't like. - no matter which side you are on.

A group of Morales party made a request at the constitutional court to still give him permission to candidate They filed a case with the court, yes

The court was not independent but under control of the party of Morales This is not an "accusation" and there is no need for investigation - it is how the court is made. The members of the court are voted on by the congress. The majority of the congress are members of MAS MAS senators and representatives tend to vote strictly along party lines The list of candidates was vetted by MAS (ultimately there were almost no non-MAS approved candidates on the list) The top 7 vote-getters are the members of the tribunal The next 7 are supplements The next 7 are emergency backups. It is not that the court is under control of MAS, they are capable of being independent It is that all members of the court are "approved" as favorable to MAS before being put on the candidates list.

The courts decision was based on the fact, that the constitution of bolivia ( Art. 13 Abs. IV) demands respect of human rights conventions, specially of the american convention of human rights, which states (Art. 23) the right of every citizen to candidate for presidancy without putting a limit No, Art 23 does not state that. It says every person should have the right to run (as in, at postulate). NOT the right to infinite reelection. Bolivia was trying to expand the meaning. The ICHR struck that down, and later ruled that term limits are not a violation of human rights. I am surprised when people on the left think this is a good tactic - Do you know who else would have won the immediate legal right to infinite reelection with this? Donald Trump

Bolivia has the second largest natural gas reserves in south America ok, they only sell gas to Brasil and Argentina and they have trouble filling those contracts sometimes.

Morales governement inhibited large companies to use this reserves only for their own profit and used most of the win for the good of the people (like Norway) NO This is your fantasy, but it has no basis in reality. In fact, very much the opposite, one of the biggest complaints against Morales was that he was giving out huge contracts to foreign countries which left almost nothing for Bolivia. And many secret contracts, without public details. AND his government was stealing money from the Indigenous Funds (a lot of money, from a special fund for indigenous projects). Morales stole almost a billion US dollars from Bolivia. He was not using most money for the good of the people.

Bolivia has also large Lithium reserves The lithium reserves in Bolivia are mostly inaccessible . They are at a very high altitude, with terrible roads to access it. There is no way to export it without paying export fees to Chile (which means not as much profit) The lithium is difficult to extract, because of a high amount of other minerals mixed in. Also, Extracting the lithium from Bolivia would destroy the Salar de Uyuni - The world's largest salt flats, with a unique ecology, unlike anywhere else in the world. I sincerely hope they stop trying. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/13/coup-morales-bolivia-lithium-isnt-new-oil/

Lithium is an important metal for the evolving "green" industry. Ist important for reusable batteries. ok, but there is plenty of lithium Argentina, Chile and Australia all have better lithium sources than Bolivia.

Morales canceled shortly after the elections and shortly before his fall at least one contract (with a German company) concerning lithium, because they gave a small percentage for the people. And replaced it with a contract with a Chinese company - giving them the exact same percentage. And closed-contract with a Russian company - we don't even know the percentage

On the elections of Okt. 2019 the party of Morales had a majority (but for the first time after 14 years no absolut majority) Because of cheating - fraud. The numbers are not real They actually had probably closer to 33% (close to what they had been polling for the prior 2 years)

The difference to the second party was more than 10%, something that means, no second round is needed No, it was not, again - there was fraud - the real numbers did not give Morales a 10% difference. There is no question there was cheating. MAS party recognizes that there was cheating There are people who have testified to how the cheating occured, and how they were made to carry it out. No one in Bolivia seriously denies that there was fraud, even Morales supporters

Immediately after the elections there were confirmed irregularities *(OAS had to this point nothing more than evidence, no prof) YES there were irregularities OAS had "nothing more than evidence - no proof"?? What do you think proof is? Evidence of a crime is proof of the crime. The OAS did not do an investigation of the results, they did an investigation of the process - and they found serious issues They also investigated citizen submitted irregularities and found many cases of confirmed irregularities as well as confirmed cases of fraud (cases where there was obvious intention) Have you read the actual OAS final report? - There is an english version http://www.oas.org/fpdb/press/Audit-Report-EN-vFINAL.pdf The OAS was not in charge of an extensive fraud investigation. As I said, they did an investigation of the process. The fraud investigation is ongoing (and being Bolivia, will be very slow), but there is a lot of proof of fraud (much was not in the OAS report) Yes

There were irregularities in the elections *(the commitee that did the control was also approved by the party of Morales) Yes, there were irregularities Yes, the Elections Tribunal was under the control of Morales / MAS Yes, The Elections Tribunal admit there were irregularities. (They have been pointing fingers at eachother)

The party of Morales was responsible for these irregularities * (The inverstigations just started, so we don't have any proof about this until now. Maybe ist true, maybe not. Its very doubtfull, if the investigations will be independent under the actual government. In the recent history is the case of a trojan not exactly rare - see for example how the second world war started ) Yes there is proof. The reason there was an uprising before Morales resigned, is because there was proof of fraud Just because you do not see it, does not mean that there is no proof. Within Bolivia, proof of fraud came from many sectors.

there was a coup d etat against Morales NO, no there was not a coup

The new regime doesn't represent at all the people of Bolivia *(the new Governor belongs to a party that has less than 6% of the votes. See again please all the relevant references in the article about these elections and the polls before and after it) Neither did the previous regime But the current regime is a temporary, interim government. They have already been organizing the next elections. They are not planning how to stay in power. This is an interim government. Bolivia has a long history of using interim governments. There was an interim government before Morales also This is part of how Bolivia works If your country does not do this, it may sound strange, but Bolivia works this way by design. It does not matter how popular the interim president's party is. Actually it is better that the interim president is not one of the major parties involved in the dispute.

The new regime claims to speak in the name of the catholic church (without of course asking the pope) No - where did you get this idea??? There is no reference to anything here, this makes no sense. Do you have any source for this idea, which I have never heard before?

The new regime made already decisions that suppress human rights No. They made some difficult decisions when the human rights of one group was put at risk by the rights of another group to protest. When the protesters turn violent, it is difficult. Do you let the violence escalate? If the protesters had caused deaths (they did), at what point is it the government's fault for not stopping the violence? Is it so easy to stop well armed violent protesters?

You can actually call these decisions as the beginning of a civil war The beginning of a civil war was before these events. When Morales decided to disrespect term limits.

Almost all of the deaths took place after Morales government was replaced from the new regime More of the deaths were after Nov 10, because Morales incited his followers to violence. The opposition kept their protests (Oct 21-Nov10) very non-violent. The opposition deaths were from MAS supporters looking for violence. Morales called for his followers to siege the cities, cutting off fuel and food. The protests that resulted in many deaths, were of violent protesters, who were unusually well armed and had dynamite. They were attempting to blow up a gas refinery, which would have resulted in many deaths. It is not surprising that violent protests will bring more death than peaceful protests.

Short after the fall of Morales the shares of a company, that has to do with lithium, topped (tesla shares) That company has no ties to Bolivia. There are no American companies even trying to exploit lithium in Bolivia - there are much easier places to extract lithium. This theory has no basis in reality. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

I tried using some of your format for the explanations this time.

Please let me know if you have questions or I can explain anything.

I will start adding links as I get time -

Question about translating links

Translations

I would like to add links, but I would like for you to be able to read them, Can you please tell me if this works?

I am linking with google translate - to Greek - I am not sure if the article will make sense though https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=el&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.paginasiete.bo%2Fnacional%2F2020%2F1%2F14%2Fhasta-en-el-mas-rechazan-la-idea-de-las-milicias-de-morales-243400.html

Thanks! An English translation is maybe better, but I do understand the Greek translation too. So, I find it "interesting", that Anez (like Morales?) already declared more than one time, that she would NOT be a candidate and then decided to be. Actually it's no surprise. It's also very "interesting" that all the local radios hat to close exactly before the elections (of course for "formal" reasons, which may still be true, but that is not so important). It's also no surprise, that she is actually using the state media already since November to make a public relation campaign for herself... You already said that you are against Trump but you made no comment about Bolsonaro. Please remember that also in Brazil they had a left government which was accused of corruption and was put away with a decision, that is not much away form a coup, and what they now have is a right government which is of course much more corrupt, much less for human rights and so on... Anyway it's your decision...

Media

About media: Media are controlled ANYWAY. So, the important thing in a democracy, is that media of various colors have the same access to the people. And it is of course important, who is controlling them. I find it of course better, when they are controlled by a party that has democratic structures, as when they are controlled by private persons (millionaires like murdog).

I do not understand what is interesting about the radio stations ?

External server

Another question: According to OAS, there has been an external server that could (and did) alter the outcome of the elections. Do we know something about who was using this server? Was this person arrested? Who is this person?

This has been pretty well detailed. The external server was attached to the preliminary vote count, not the final count. It is not correct that the "server altered the outcome of the elections". It is that altering the preliminary results was possible, in part due to an external server that had access to the database. The database itself was accessed manually from more than one location (including the external server), but it is not known what alterations were made to the database. The people who made and ran the database claimed that the changes to the database did not alter the results. But there is not really a way to know what changes were made exactly (server logs are not public, and can also be altered). Altering the preliminary data was an important part of the fraud, because it allowed them to alter the final vote tabulations, and still have the numbers match. The man in charge of the TREP servers and database fled the country immediately following elections (Marcelo Guzman de Rojas under the business name of "Neotec"). He has been called to make a declaration, but is believed to be hiding in Russia. The former director of the SERECI was arrested in relation to the database alterations also. He had been in the position less than 6 months, after the previous director quit unexpectedly. An unusually high number of high-ranking administrators and regional directors of SERECI turned over less than 6 months before the elections. There is also a "consultant" Sergio Martinez (Sergio Daniel Martínez Beltrán), who also left the country immediately after the elections, who has been issued an arrest warrant, but I think his location is unknown. He was hired less than 2 weeks before the elections as a "consultant" but with no concrete responsibilities. He was given access, but was unsupervised.

• https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2019/12/13/guzman-de-rojas-pasa-de-ser-testigo-sindicado-por-el-fraude-electoral-240350.html
• https://eldeber.com.bo/150767_el-sereci-de-cochabamba-tambien-cambio-personal-a-un-mes-de-las-elecciones
• https://eju.tv/2019/09/opositores-critican-el-nombramiento-del-nuevo-director-del-sereci-cruceno/
• https://eju.tv/2019/12/detencion-domiciliaria-para-el-director-nacional-del-sereci-por-presuntos-delitos-electorales/
• https://eldeber.com.bo/158956_sergio-martinez-el-asesor-de-los-vocales-y-que-manipulo-datos-de-las-elecciones-huyo-de-bolivia

Laella (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

So, if I understand it well, we still don't really know, who was actually running the external server. Two persons that maybe have to do with it, are somewhere in the world. And it still can be, that these two persons were maybe actually not the ones running the external server. Is there a way to provide a proof (I mean of course apart from torturing), that all the members of the election committee that were arrested actually knew that there was an external server and really knew what they were doing?

Apropos torturing, here is a joke about it:

Three countries, lets say France, Norway and a country known for its perfection in torturing (could be USA, Russia, China, any country with a dictatorship and so on) make a contest. They let a rabbit run free in a field and try to discover it. Norway uses drones and so on. After two days they give up. France uses also drones but also satellites and so on. After four days they give up. Now its the turn of the last country (the one known for torture perfectionism).

After two hours they come with a bear

which says loud and clear:

"I admit it!!! I am the rabbit!!!"

Have a nice day (or night, whatever you have in your country right now :-) )

• Sorry I wasn't clear enough:
  • the man running the server was Marcelo Guzman de Rojas under the business name of "Neotec"
  • It was his server. - he said it was his and no one has ever suggested otherwise.
  • Other people accessed that server. (Sergio Martinez, maybe others)
  • It is not clear who may have accessed it, and it is not clear what alterations have been made from that server.
  • No one is accusing the TSE members of running the server, or knowing anything particular about the server - that is NOT why they were under arrest.
  • None of them have been tortured, and I don't have that kind of sense of humor.
  • The problem lies in the existence of a server (with an insecure username/password) which could access the election database from outside the local network.
    • It is not proof of fraud
    • It is an obvious and easy way to commit fraud.
    • It should never have existed. At best, it shows incompetence, at worst it shows intent to allow access to the election database.
  • To be extra extra extra clear - Marcelo Guzman de Rojas was never in custody and was never tortured.
    • In fact, he has adamantly defended his decision to use the server.

Sorry, you misunderstood something, I didn't mean that these people were tortured (I don't really know why you thought I suggest something like this). Sorry about that. The intention of the "joke" is to show how absurd (apart from inhuman) torture is and I know it from a friend, that already has already lived on his skin the violence of the state... Thanks also for the extra info Yomomo (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)